Search This Blog

Friday, October 31, 2014

Senator Jeff Sessions will soon release this statement in response to a report in the Wall Street Journal that details President Obama's plans to unilaterally implement amnesty.

"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election.

"In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans.

"Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.

"Earlier this week, President Obama’s former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President’s earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one’s oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.

"The President is assuming for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, work, live, and claim benefits in the United States. He has exempted virtually every group in the world from America’s immigration laws: people who enter before a certain age, people related to people who enter before a certain age, adults traveling with minors, minors traveling with adults, illegal immigrants who are not convicted of serious crimes, illegal workers who are convicted of serious crimes but not enough serious crimes, almost anyone who shows up the border and demands asylum, the millions who overstay their visas, and, as was recently exposed, illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories. The list continues to grow.

"A nation creates borders and laws to protect its own citizens. What about their needs?

"The President is systemically stripping away the immigration protections to which every single American worker and their family is entitled. He doesn’t care how this impacts Americans’ jobs, wages, schools, tax bills, hospitals, police departments, or communities.

"But it gets worse still. The WSJ reports that the President is ‘expected to benefit businesses that use large numbers of legal immigrants, such as technology companies.’ Those changes include measures to massively expand the number of foreign workers for IT companies—measures aggressively lobbied for by IT giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Yet we have more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees who don’t have jobs in these fields. Rutgers professor Hal Salzman documented that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are being filled by foreign workers. From 2000 through today, a period of record legal immigration, all net gains in employment among the working-age have gone entirely to immigrant workers.

"And now, in order to help open borders billionaires, President Obama is going to deny millions of Americans their shot at entering the middle class and a better life.

"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people. But the citizens of this country still hold the power, and through their voice, they can turn the country right-side again."

One of the outstanding questions left in this election is whether the Democrats' ground operation – an operation that has proven to be far superior to that of Republicans in recent years - will be enough to help their candidates squeak out narrow victories. Thus far, Democratic incumbents have done a pretty amazing job in dramatically outperforming the president’s standing in the polls. The question now is whether the Obama drag will simply be too much for even the sturdiest of Democratic candidates to overcome.

One way to look at how serious of a burden the president is on Democrats – even those in traditionally blue and purple states – is to compare his job approval ratings today with those at this same point in 2012. What stands out the most – and what’s the most perilous for Democrats in 2014 – is how soured the so-called Obama coalition is on the Democratic president.

In the charts listed below, I’ve compiled data from the most recent NBC News/Marist polls from Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina and compared it to data from 2012 NBC News/Marist polls in those three states. What you see, of course, is a president whose approval ratings have sagged dramatically, even among those who were solidly supportive of him two years ago.

In Iowa, Obama’s job approval rating among women has taken a 23-point swing from a net positive of 14 points (54/40) to a net negative of 13 points (40/53). In Colorado, Latinos have significantly soured on Obama. At this point in 2012, Latino’s approved of the job Obama was doing 64 percent to 32 percent disapprove. Today, it’s an anemic 51 percent approve/42 percent disapprove. And, in North Carolina, Obama’s approval ratings among younger voters (18-29 years old), went from +50 (70 percent approve to 20 percent disapprove) to -4 (40 percent approve to 44 percent disapprove).

The good news for Democrats is that they are still winning among these key demographic groups. In Iowa, for example, while Obama’s approval ratings among unmarried women are underwater (44/48), Iowa Democratic Senate nominee Bruce Braley leads Republican Joni Ernst among this critical demographic by 28-points (60 percent to 32 percent). However, the question remains as to whether Democrats will get the margins of victory they need from voters who are decidedly dourer about the president than they were two years earlier.

Sasha Issenberg, author of the definitive book on the role of data analytics in campaigns, looked at the data behind the ground game in seven Democratic-held states, including Iowa, North Carolina, and Colorado. In this must-read piece in Bloomberg Politics, Issenberg writes, "Looking at these seven states, it becomes clear how much of the burden of campaigning is on Democrats, a function of both the time and the space in which the 2014 midterms take place. With a higher base in every state covered here other than Louisiana, Republicans simply have less work to do to get to their win number. And historically, the Democrats have had a much more difficult time turning out their base in midterm elections than have Republicans. Republicans generally start their efforts to woo persuadable voters—who are, overwhelmingly, and as is now nearly always the case, slightly older whites—from a stronger position, too. Barack Obama’s broad unpopularity has become a drag on Democrats’ efforts to persuade."

In other words, it’s one thing to be able to turn out Latino voters when the president has a 64 percent approval rating with these voters. It’s another to try and motivate them when the president is at 51 percent.

O'Reilly: Democrats Using Vicious "Morally Wrong" Racial Politics

BILL O'REILLY, FNC: In North Carolina the senate race between the Democrat incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican challenger Thom Tillis very close and very dirty.

A group organized by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid running this radio ad.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And Tillis won't fight for us. Instead he made it harder for communities to come to vote by restricting early voting and voter registration. Tillis even led the effort to fight to fight stand your ground laws that caused the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

O'REILLY: In addition, leaflets have been printed that say "If Senator Hagan loses President Obama will be impeached." In Georgia Democrats are circulating a flier warning that if Republicans win there will be more Fergusons. The flier shows two black children holding signs that say "don't shoot". Arkansas leaflets say, quote: "Republicans are targeting our kids, silencing our voices and even trying to impeach our President," unquote.

Now we looked for similar racial stuff on the Republican side but could not find any. So it seems the race card is being played exclusively by Democrats in order to stimulate African-American voting.

Now, there are a number of things wrong with this. First, it's morally wrong. You don't take highly charged incidents like Ferguson out of context for any reason.

Secondly, the Democrats who are doing these things are obviously trying to distill division and hatred. That is not -- not the American way. Each candidate running for office next Tuesday should stand on his or her record and vision. We don't need vicious propaganda.

And then there is the bigger question why African-Americans believe only one political party is looking out for them. 2012 President Obama received 93 percent of the black vote, understandable because he is the first person of color elected to the Oval Office.

However, the President's policies have not really benefited black Americans very much. And the facts are in stone. Six years, black unemployment has dropped less than two percentage points and is nearly six points more than white Americans. Black median income basically flat on Barack Obama. Socially, we remain a divided country, not a lot of unity coming about.

Now, much of the race debate centers on historical atrocities against blacks and that's what the white privilege deal is all about. Liberals saying black Americans do not have a fair shot because of how they were treated in America for hundreds of years. There is some truth to that. But to use a blanket of white privilege to cover failure and criminal behavior in the black precincts is destructive to African-Americans themselves. The truth is if you work hard, if you get educated. If you are an honest person this country offers black people more opportunity than any other country on earth. When is the last time you heard Al Sharpton say that?

Summing up -- racial politics are abhorrent, and black Americans should rebel against them.

While walking down the street one day a corrupt Senator was tragically, (depends how you look at it), hit by a car and died.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the Senator.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really? I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They played a friendly game of golf and then dined on lobster, caviar and the finest wines and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes.

They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, "Now it's time to visit heaven.”

So, 24 hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now where would you like to be for your eternity?"

The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls to the ground.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.

"I don't understand," stammers the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

Taking a break from campaign stops for fellow Republicans, Sen. Rand Paul was back in Washington, D.C., yesterday to deliver a keynote address at The Heritage Foundation’s annual President’s Club meeting.

Afterward, in an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal, the Kentucky Republican answered questions on President Obama’s plans to implement administrative amnesty following the election, the religious liberty debate playing out in Houston, the government’s response to Ebola and the fallout in Ferguson, Mo., where Paul recently visited.

The saddest aspect of this year’s scoundrelly election season is the Democrats’ effort to stir up racial discord in hopes of hanging on to control of the Senate. No lie is too absurd for the Democrats when Harry Reid’s future is at stake. The New York Times reports:

In the final days before the election, Democrats in the closest Senate races across the South are turning to racially charged messages — invoking Trayvon Martin’s death, the unrest in Ferguson, Mo., and Jim Crow-era segregation — to jolt African-Americans into voting and stop a Republican takeover in Washington.

Apparently they assume that no one remembers it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who went to war to defend slavery and imposed Jim Crow.

The images and words they are using are striking for how overtly they play on fears of intimidation and repression. …

In North Carolina, the “super PAC” started by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, ran an ad on black radio that accused the Republican candidate, Thom Tillis, of leading an effort to pass the kind of gun law that “caused the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.”

This one got four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. “Stand your ground” laws had nothing to do with the Martin case, and Tillis had little or nothing to do with passage of the stand your ground law in North Carolina.

In Georgia, Democrats are circulating a flier warning that voting is the only way “to prevent another Ferguson.” It shows two black children holding cardboard signs that say “Don’t shoot.”

The Democrats have created a mythology around Ferguson, just as they created a fictional Trayvon Martin story. That their Martin story was proved false at trial apparently means nothing; nor is there any apparent reason why that case–whatever you think of it–should cause one to vote for Democrats. But if you are a Democrat, logic is optional. The politically-motivated myth-building starts at the top: Attorney General Eric Holder says “I think it’s pretty clear that the need for wholesale change in that [Ferguson] department is appropriate,” even though his own department has an ongoing investigation that has so far produced no findings.

The messages are coursing through the campaigns like a riptide, powerful and under the surface, largely avoiding television and out of view of white voters. … Democrats say Republicans need to own their record of passing laws hostile to African-American interests on issues like voting rights.

Unlike the Democrats, Republicans have never advocated or passed racially discriminatory voting laws. The idea that African-Americans don’t have driver’s licenses and are too befuddled to obtain other forms of identification is not just a joke, but a slander against those voters for which Democrats weirdly pay no penalty.

The materials that Democrats are passing out are shocking:

[A]t a black church in Fayetteville, leaflets with a grainy image of a lynching have appeared, warning voters that if Ms. Hagan loses, President Obama will be impeached.

Lynchings were carried out by Democrats, not Republicans. And no one is talking about impeaching Obama except Democrats. Is there someone who seriously believes that if Republicans control the Senate, lynchings will resume in the South? Can anyone possibly be that dumb? Apparently leaders of the Democratic Party believe their voters are. Impeachment is a common theme of the Democrats’ appeals:

In Arkansas, voters are opening mailboxes to find leaflets with images of the Ferguson protests and the words: “Enough! Republicans are targeting our kids, silencing our voices and even trying to impeach our president.”

“Republicans are targeting our kids?” This is delusional.

Toward these insane lies, the Times maintains an attitude of scrupulous neutrality. Until the end, when the paper gives the last word to a Democrat who says, it wouldn’t work if it weren’t true:

“It’s not race-baiting; it’s actually happening,” said Jaymes Powell Jr., an official in the North Carolina Democratic Party’s African-American Caucus. “I can’t catch a fish unless there’s a worm on the hook.”

That Democrats appeal to the ignorant is nothing new. That is how they win elections. But it is truly sad that the Democratic Party cares nothing about the damage it is doing to the United States by using lies to stir up racial division. The Democrats care nothing about truth, and nothing about their country’s future. They care only about their own greed for power. Let’s hope that this year, voters aren’t foolish enough to fall for the Democrats’ hate campaign.

Celebrities are putting on a money-raising show, digging into their wallets in a last ditch effort to help Democrats and Republicans before Election Day.

David Letterman, Ben Affleck, former NFL quarterback John Elway, and “Scandal’s” Shonda Rhimes were among those pitching in to help their candidates of choice with cash before next week’s midterm elections.

The donations made in this past fundraising cycle are largely being funneled to high-stakes match-ups that could either keep the Senate in Democratic hands or tilt it to GOP control.

But in some cases, A-listers might be opening their checkbooks for old pals.

“Late Show” host Letterman was one of several high-profile donors to Sen. Al Franken’s reelection campaign. The Minnesota Democrat has worked to fend off Republican businessman Mike McFadden and is expected to survive.

Franken and Letterman have a long history together — the “Saturday Night Live” alum first appeared on the late-night funnyman’s CBS show back in 1987. Franken has the distinction of being the sole recipient of Letterman’s political dollars over the years. Letterman, who’s retiring in 2015, cut a check for $5,100 this year to Franken, and donated to him twice in 2008, and once in 2011.

The TV comedian isn’t the only celeb Franken has in his star-packed (and humor-filled) fundraising arsenal. With donations from comedy mega-producer Judd Apatow, “Cheers” actor Ted Danson, fellow former “SNL” comic Will Forte, and singer Nancy Sinatra, Franken comes in near the top of the list of candidates for the most money contributed to his campaign by Hollywood.

Brown has some major muscle on his side too: World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Vince McMahon, whose wife Linda unsuccessfully ran for Senate in Connecticut twice, threw $5,200 into the Republican’s ring. Meanwhile, real estate mogul Donald Trump, who has flirted over the years with a possible political run himself, fired off $2,500.

Many celebrities have apparently maxed out in donations to Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, whose race against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has received some of the heaviest attention in the country.

But with $5,200 each being the maximum amount an individual can give to a single candidate in a two-year election cycle, Grimes’s star donors appear to have tapped out in the last month. Soon-to-be “Batman” star Ben Affleck and wife Jennifer Garner did donate $5,000 each to the Kentucky State Democratic Central Executive Committee, though.

Shonda Rhimes, the mind behind the TV hits “Scandal,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and “How to Get Away With Murder,” dug deep into her pockets for the Democratic National Committee, donating a whopping $32,400 at the end of July. Legendary Motown hitmaker Berry Gordy made a five-figure contribution in the same amount to the DNC, while comedians Steve Harvey and Patton Oswalt also donated.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also gave big, helping Alaska Senate candidate Dan Sullivan’s campaign with a $5,200 check. The Republican is in a competitive race against Sen. Mark Begich (D). Producer Jerry Bruckheimer, meanwhile, made a $250 donation to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

President Obama said the nation does not need to impose mandatory quarantines for individuals who may have been exposed to the Ebola virus. He countered governors who recommended them.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says U.S. troops serving in humanitarian missions to West Africa will be quarantined upon their return.

Obama sees differences between the two circumstances. Medical personnel, including missionaries, go the Ebola epicenters by choice. They are volunteers. The military personnel sent to West Africa follow orders. The decision is not theirs.

The distinction means little. Persons who go to, say, Liberia expose themselves to the virus regardless of their reasons for being there. Moreover, quarantines are intended to protect not only an at-risk patient but the greater community. The point of a quarantine is to prevent contagion’s spread.

Election Day looking like a referendum on competence

Is this election really about nothing? Democrats might like to think so, but it’s not.

First, like all U.S. elections, it’s about the economy. The effect of the weakest recovery in two generations is reflected in President Obama’s 13-point underwater ratings for his handling of the economy.

Charles Krauthammer writes a weekly political column that runs on Fridays. View Archive

Moreover, here is a president who proclaims the reduction of inequality to be the great cause of his administration. Yet it has radically worsened in his six years. The 1 percent are doing splendidly in the Fed-fueled stock market, even as median income has fallen.

Second is the question of competence. The list of disasters is long, highlighted by the Obamacare rollout, the Veterans Affairs scandal and the pratfalls of the once-lionized Secret Service. Beyond mere incompetence is government intrusiveness and corruption, as in the overreach of national security surveillance and IRS targeting of politically disfavored advocacy groups.

Ebola has crystallized the collapse of trust in state authorities. The overstated assurances, the ever-changing protocols, the startling contradictions — the Army quarantines soldiers returning from West Africa while the White House denounces governors who did precisely the same with returning health-care workers — have undermined government in general, this government in particular.

Obama’s clumsy attempt to restore confidence by appointing an Ebola czar has turned farcical. When the next crisis broke — a doctor home from West Africa develops Ebola after having traversed significant parts of New York City between his return and his infection — the czar essentially disappeared. Perhaps he is practicing self-quarantine.

But there’s a third factor contributing to the nation’s deepening anxiety — a sense of helplessness and confusion abroad as, in the delicate phrase of our secretary of defense, “the world is exploding all over.”

Most voters don’t care about the details of Ukraine, the factions in Libya or the precise battle lines of the Islamic State. But they do have a palpable sense of American weakness.

This was brought home most profoundly by the videotaped beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff. It wasn’t just the savagery that affected so many Americans but the contempt shown by these savages for America — its power, its resolve. Here is a JV team (Obama’s erstwhile phrase) defying the world’s great superpower, daring it to engage, confident that America will fail or flee.